Blurts

I have been an Apple fan since there was an Apple.

I am beginning to have an issue with their approach which seems limited to great hardware and great software. They are basically “late to the cloud”. Here are a couple of examples:

a) Ownership of music in a physical sense (having the bits on my computer) is no longer necessary or even perhaps the best form of ownership. What I really want is to listen to what I want when I want. Lala offers a great example of an alternative model – rather than purchase music from iTunes to put on my computer for .99, I can access the same song as long as I have Internet access for .10. In addition, I can listen from any computer not just the computer I used to download the song from iTunes.

b) The netbook – an inexpensive computer that is perfect for accessing online services – is another example. If I can save a large amount of money spent on hardware and software by accessing online services why not take this approach? Apple desperately needs a great $500 netbook. I own multiple computers. I can see a model that combines a netbook and a desktop as superior to a model that combines a laptop and a desktop. Money aside – we need to do less on any given machine, but we need access to what we do from as many locations as possible and with as many devices as possible. Why duplicate software across these devices? Why have resources we want confined to different machines? 

I have a new late night hobby. I build inexpensive collections of music around themes. I like the iTunes Essentials collections – music around a theme (e.g., Live Guitar Heroics), but I don’t want to spend the money ($25 in this example) for the collection. More and more I do not buy to own, I buy to access (this should be an advertising slogan). Probably 95% of the music I listen to I am at a computer with an Internet connection. This is perfect for LaLa. 89 cents to own, 10 cents for online listening.

So my hobby – use iTunes to explore interesting collections and LaLa to purchase access. I create a “playlist” for each collection and add songs for 10 cents. I imagine there are some other strategies I might use. I have books on great jazz artists that list their most famous works. 

LaLa has some other interesting capabilities. It identifies music you own and gives you credit for this music – you can listen online. There are some useful applications of this opportunity that may not be readily apparent. I have two large iTunes collections (several thousand songs each) – one collection on my office machine and one on my home machine. One of the problems with this approach is that I cannot listen to music I own if I am in the wrong location. LaLa takes care of this problem. 

This is a pretty cool service.

For many, stimulus package proposals have been tainted by the addition of set asides. I have wondered about this and wondered what those representing my state have attempted to add. I assumed that some watch dog group would publish lists so the public would be informed on such issues.

Converge has released a list of proposed set asides for education. When you see items on a list that you may support, you begin understand the complexity of the issue. What is a convenient way to support important programs according to one group is simply pork to another. 

All in all, I guess I wish it were possible to be more straight forward with what a proposal is about and what it supports. Are the many negative campaign ads related to this complexity – so and so voted against medical care for your dear old grandmother 37 times. 

I enjoy Steven Levy as a writer. Hackers was a favorite in the early days and Insanely Great because I am an Apple Fan.

Here is an amusing post on the “pressure” of Twitter and blogging.

Wow – Gary Stager sure does not like Daniel Pink. Ok, but he pushed it too far when he belittled Thomas Friedman.

There are plenty of folks out there with perspectives and little more – I agree. BTW – we each probably have our target groups – those who seem to tell a good story with little data. The money issue aside (I agree with you here regarding speaker fees and Daniel Pink’s work reminds me of the early days of Psychology Today), you might note that some of the most prominent researchers in the field of education suggest the constructivist position is pretty soft on empirical support. 

Dangerously Irrelevant post on parents who use online tools to make their wishes known to schools. In Grown Up Digital, Tapscott calles these folks “helicopter parents” and contends they not only attempt to influence schools, but also employers. I am guessing coaches have it the worst. As a college prof, the law gives us an out/requirement. When contacted by parents, we must suggest that we are not allowed to discuss student performance with anyone but the supposedly “adult” student.

Not that parental involvement is a bad thing, but too often the children who most need an advocate are not represented. Note that the post uses the phrase “well connected”. One of the issues of going to online activities is once students leave the equal access environment of the school, they are no longer equal. There is always a lag and it has unfolded over time like this – wealthy schools before less wealthy schools, wealthy families before poor families with access, wealthy families with high speed before poor families with high speed access, etc.